Last week, as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on two cases involving same-sex marriage (one centered on California’s Proposition 8 and the other on the Defense of Marriage Act), people around the country began to voice their opinions.  One of the most attention grabbing tactics came on Facebook.  The Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender rights, changed their Facebook profile Tuesday morning (March 26^th) to a red equal sign to show support for same-sex marriage, and encouraged others to follow suit.  This adaptation of the Human Rights Campaign’s logo then exploded all over Facebook.  It was everywhere (the fact that I knew about it says something, given that I hardly ever use my Facebook).  Data released by Facebook last Friday actually supports the notion that most people followed the lead of the Human Rights Campaign, as “2.7 million more people changed their profile pictures on Tuesday, March 26 compared to the previous Tuesday.”  While Facebook did not track what exactly people changed their profile pictures to, one need not be Sherlock Holmes to connect the dots.  The wave of red spread to Twitter (13 Congressmen changed their avatar’s to the symbol) and it began to take on a life of its own, as people started posting modified versions of the equal sign.  Some adjustments were touching, others amusing, and many were just plain random, but they all helped show support for a worthy cause.

However, the red equal sign was not the only way people responded to the Supreme Court’s pending decision.  The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) held a March and Rally in Washington DC to advocate protecting traditional marriage.  The 10,000 individuals in attendance showcased signs that read “Respect Our Votes!” and “Kids Deserve a Mom and a Dad!”  The march ended in front of the Supreme Court and the rally included 20 different speakers.  Brian Brown, President of NOM said, “A diverse crowd of more than 10,000 marched today to show that those who protect marriage are on the right side of history. The Supreme Court has no right to redefine marriage and roll back the efforts of Americans to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the only social arrangement that gives children the mother and father they deserve.”  At the rally, one staff writer for the website BuzzFeed went around and asked twenty different young people why they supported traditional marriage, and this is what a few of them had to say:

I respect the views of others.  In my opinion, what you believe is your business, not mine, and I want nothing to do with it (as my best friend says “do you”).  However, I have trouble wrapping my head around many of the arguments presented in support of traditional marriage.  These are just a few statements that puzzle me.

“Kids Deserve a Mom and a Dad!”

What about single parents?  Based on this logic they should not be allowed to have children. However, in reality, numerous children go through life with only one parent and can still have a fulfilling and wonderful childhood.  So why does having two fathers or two mothers make a difference?  In my opinion, having someone who loves you, cares for you, and protects you is a much higher priority than having parents of opposite genders.

“It is written in the bible.”/”Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.”/”Marriage is not a right but a call from God.”/etc.

I would never tell anyone how to practice their religion or what to believe in. If you steadfastly believe that God does not support same-sex unions as a part of your religion then that is your choice and it is not my place to tell you what to do.  However, marriage is not a strictly Christian institution – people of all different religions and beliefs get married and receive the legal benefits of that union.  Since the institution is not restricted to one religion, no religion has the right to set restrictions that apply to everyone and not just their followers. To do so would be to project your religious beliefs on others.  That is your business and your choice, not anyone else’s.

“Marriage is a child-centered institution, not an adult centered one, which unites children to their parents.”

So many people get married without the intention of having children, or they get married but learn that one spouse is physically incapable of conceiving a child. This does not mean they should no longer be married.  In a modern sense, marriage is not solely about children but about love – a life long commitment to another person.

Hopefully in July the Supreme Court will agree with me, but the Justices and the nation in general are so divided on the issue, that almost anything could happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/red-equal-sign-facebook_n_2980489.html

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/facebook-profile-pictures-red-gay-marriage_n_2957968.html

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2013/03/what-is-that-red-equal-sign-on-facebook-all-about/

http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&ct=13053133

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/young-people-who-believe-marriage-should-be-between-a-man-an

http://www.hrc.org/blog/entry/slideshow-hrc-logo-memes

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/supreme-court-proposition-8_n_2950615.html

Well, I think we have the who and the why down, but now it is time to figure out the what, when, and where of legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States.  By that I mean, “What will our society look like when gay marriage is legal?” “When did gay marriage become legal?” and “Where is gay marriage legal?”

Let’s start with WHERE.

United States

Nine states have currently legalized gay marriage: Maine, Maryland (home state 🙂 ), Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington, and New York.  (Plus the District of Columbia).

Thirty-one states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage: Oregon*, Nevada*, Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona, Colorado*, Alaska, Hawaii*, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin*, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware*. (The asterisk means that state recognizes full or partial benefits for civil unions and partnerships)

Six states have passed statutory laws banning gay marriage: Wyoming, Minnesota, Illinois*, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

Now, lets move abroad.  These eleven countries allow same sex marriage: the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Iceland, Portugal, and Brazil.

Next, we look at WHEN.

United States:

*Not pictured: Delaware (1973), Wyoming (1977), Minnesota (1977), Pennsylvania (1996), Illinois (1996), West Virginia (2000), and Indiana (2004) ban gay marriage.

Abroad:

Finally, we end with WHAT.

What exactly will the United States look like once gay marriage has been legalized? Without a crystal ball that question is extraordinarily difficult to answer and varies depending on whom you ask for a prediction.

Supporters of gay marriage simply state that more marriages and weddings will occur and more people will find happiness – nothing of consequence will happen to those who do not identify themselves as homosexuals.  However, two studies from the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School in 2009 claimed that legalizing gay marriage added to the Massachusetts economy by increasing wedding spending (adding $11 million in five years), and that it attracted “young, mobile, and highly educated individuals” to the state.

According to the Family Research Council, however, the legalization of same sex marriage will result in the following ten consequences:

“Immediate Effects  

Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.

If same-sex marriage were legalized, all employers, public and private, large or small, would be required to offer spousal benefits to homosexual couples. You, as a taxpayer, consumer, or small business owner, would be forced to bear the expense of subsidizing homosexual relationships-including their higher health care costs.

Schools would teach that homosexual relationships are identical to heterosexual ones.

A lesbian who teaches 8th grade sex education in Massachusetts told NPR that she teaches her children how lesbians use “a sex toy” to have intercourse. If anyone objects, she says, “Give me a break. It’s legal now.” One father was jailed after protesting because his son-a kindergarten student-was given a book about same-sex couples.

Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened.  

Churches and non-profit organizations could be stripped of their tax exemptions and religious psychologists, social workers, and marriage counselors could be denied licensing if they “discriminate” against homosexuals. Individual believers who disapprove of homosexual relationships may face a choice at work between forfeiting their freedom of speech and being fired.

Long-Term Effects

Fewer people would marry.

In Massachusetts, where same-sex “marriages” began in May 2004, only 52% of same-sex couples who live together had even bothered to “marry” by the end of 2006. Among opposite-sex couples, the comparable figure is 91%. In the Netherlands, the figures are even lower, with only 12% of homosexual couples having entered legal civil “marriages.” Giving the option of same-sex “marriage” would tell society that marriage in general is “optional,” not normative, and fewer people would marry.

Fewer people would remain monogamous and sexually faithful.

Among homosexual men, sex with multiple partners is tolerated and often expected. One study in the Netherlands showed that homosexual men with a steady partner had an average of eight sexual partners per year. If these behaviors are incorporated into what society affirms as “marriage,” then fidelity among heterosexuals would likely decline as well.  

Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.

Even a homosexual psychologist has acknowledged that “gay and lesbian couples dissolve their relationships more frequently than heterosexual couples.” The same Dutch study that showed the high rate of homosexual promiscuity also showed that the average homosexual male “partnership” lasts only 1.5 years. As the transience of homosexual relationships is incorporated in society’s image of “marriage,” we can expect that fewer heterosexuals would maintain a lifelong commitment.

Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father.  

Social science has clearly proven clearly that children do best when raised by their own married biological mother and father. Yet legalizing same-sex “marriage” would put an official stamp of approval on the deliberate creation of permanently motherless or fatherless families. As scholar Stanley Kurtz says, this “would likely speed us on the way toward

. . . more frequent out-of-wedlock birth, and skyrocketing family dissolution.”

More children would grow up fatherless.

Most children who live with only one biological parent will live with their mothers, and lesbian couples are more likely to be raising children than homosexual male couples. Therefore, with same-sex “marriage,” more children would suffer the specific negative consequences of fatherlessness, which include higher rates of youth incarceration among males and adolescent pregnancy among females. Research also shows negative outcomes for the children of sperm donors, who are used by some lesbian couples.

Birth rates would fall.

Same-sex “marriage” would eliminate the incentive for procreation that is implicit in defining marriage as a male-female union. There is already evidence of at least a correlation between same-sex “marriage” and low birth and fertility rates, both in the U.S. and abroad. While some people still harbor outdated fears about “over-population,” demographers now understand that declining birth rates harm society.

Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow.

If a person’s choice of spouse cannot be limited based on the sex of one’s partner, it is hard to see how it could be limited based on the number of spouses either. This argument is already being pressed in the courts.”

I attached the entire list because I had no idea how to synthesize this perspective.  To me, many of these supposed consequences do not make logical sense, though I have no definitive answer as to whether or not something negative could arise from this change.  However, I have seen no news story about the devolution of society and the verge of an apocalypse as a result of legalizing gay marriage come from any of the regions (in the US and abroad) that have legalized it.  I don’t know, but I suppose eventually we will find out.

Sources:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/same-sex-marriage/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership_in_Oregon

http://www.cobar.org/index.cfm/ID/21614

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/18/timeline-same-sex-marriage/

http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/Gay-Marriage-Timeline.aspx

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/#Background

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Wisconsin

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/5_years_after_samesex_marriage.html

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/the-top-ten-harms-of-same-sex-marriage

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Indiana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Illinois

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Delaware

What is marriage?

It stands to reason that before I continue discussing marriage vs. gay marriage and the legalization of the latter, I should probably define marriage.  So, after perusing Google I have come up with a few definitions for you.

1. According to Merriam Webster, marriage means “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.” HOWEVER, it also means “the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>.”

2. Dictionary.com calls marriage “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.” But they go on to say “a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.”

3. Encyclopedia Britannica: “a legally and socially sanctioned union, usually between a man and a woman, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any) [. . .] Perhaps its strongest function concerns procreation, the care of children . . .”

4. Urban Dictionary describes marriage as something “straight couples have legally and commonly don’t want, and what gay couples don’t have legally and commonly want.”

Based on the expertise of Google and various definition websites, it would appear that marriage is actually defined as a union between a man and a woman, rather than simply a union.  However, if that was the only definition that mattered, the battle over gay marriage would have ended once someone typed marriage into Google search.  So what definition does matter?  To me it has three components: the legal definition, the religious definition, and the emotional definition (or connotation if you want to get fancy).

Legally

According to Cornell University Law School:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

To see exactly how the law views marriages in the United States, we can turn to the highly debated Defense of Marriage Act, which, “in addition to defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, it absolves states from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal in other states. Since 1996, the law has been subject to lawsuits in lower courts challenging its constitutionality” (CBS).

Here are some of the legal benefits of marriage in case you are interested:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Religiously

(For simplicity I am sticking to Christianity in general, though I know there are many other religions and many denominations of Christianity, all of which may have their own opinions. Please note I am not an expert so do not attack me thank you 🙂 )

To my true surprise, this answer was much more difficult to find than I had presumed.  As a non-religious individual, I had no idea what the Bible specifically stated as the definition of marriage, and it proved difficult to find, because the Bible can be interpreted in numerous ways.  For instance, take this exchange between two men who have differing opinions regarding same-sex marriage:

Ken Silva (Opposes Gay Marriage)

“And Pharisees came up to Him and tested Him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that He Who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” (Matthew 19:3-7, ESV)

Ken writes: “Rick, Jesus has just defined marriage as a male (man) to a female (woman), and that’s how the men to whom He was speaking understood it. 

That’s always been the orthodox Jewish position as well as that of the historic orthodox Christian Church. Even John Shelby Spong admitted homosexuality cannot be defended from Scripture.

You are welcome to your views, but as gently as I can say it, they really don’t stand in the light of Scripture.” 

Rick Brentlinger (Supports Gay Marriage)

Hi Ken- I will address your factually inaccurate statements point by point.

1. “to come to a conclusion biblically that same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant.” 

That is your opinion based on your presuppositions about male-female Complementarity in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Your opinion differs from what the texts actually say.

The Pharisees did not ask Jesus if “same sex sexual relations are always outside the marriage covenant.”

Your interpretation substitutes your opinion – something Jesus didn’t say – for what Jesus actually said. You are teaching your opinion – something Jesus did not say – as absolute truth. Obviously that is a false way of interpreting scripture.

Here is the link to the rest of what he says – Brentlinger responds to six of the points Silva makes, and it gets very long. (http://www.gaychristian101.com/did-jesus-define-marriage-as-only-between-a-man-and-a-woman.html)

So clearly finding a definitive written statement within the Bible is easier said than done, as the debate seems to rage on as to whether or not such a statement exists. Though, I did find this one line of scripture that may or may not prove useful:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (Romans 1:27).”

(If you find something better, feel free to post it as a comment, I am curious to see what it says).

However, one thing does remain clear – the Church’s official stance on homosexuality.

According to AmericanCatholic.org, “The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages.”

(Yes, there are many other denominations with many other potential viewpoints. I am well aware that this statement does not speak for all of Christianity).

Based on all of this, I am going to say religion defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  Without a shadow of a doubt there are counter-arguments to this from those much more qualified to make them than myself.  I am well aware, so please do not attack me for that sentence.  Thank you 🙂

Emotionally

Since I am not religious I cannot even postulate what it means to an individual, in his/her heart, to be married in a religious sense.  I can, however, definitively say that I do not want to get married some day because of the allure of tax breaks from the US government.  So while the legal definition of marriage does matter, because who doesn’t love tax breaks and the like, I do not consider it the most important definition.  I think the emotional definition matters most.  Now, at least I would hope, people marry for love.  They marry in order to show their friends, family, (and if you are famous the world), your commitment and love for another human being.  Emotionally, I think marriage means, “I will always stand by you and love you, through thick and thin, and no matter what happens you will always remain my best friend.”

According to Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, marriage “ is more than the sum of its legal parts. It is also a cultural institution. The word itself is a fundamental protection, conveying clearly that you and your life partner love each other, are united and belong by each other’s side. It represents the ultimate expression of love and commitment between two people and everyone understands that. No other word has that power, and no other word can provide that protection.”

I suppose this is why no one wants to settle for a civil union or another marriage equivalency, because it will never truly be equivalent.  It will not have the same emotional meaning.  It won’t feel like the same promise.  I know that I would never want some random word the government told me meant essentially the same thing as a marriage.  I would want the real deal too.  And that is what we are all fighting about.